Spring Surprise from Round 2....AMT 1988 Mustang GT (revised reissue of old MPC tool)

[Rob Hall]

Just now, Chuck Kourouklis said:

And ain't it a 5.2 Voodoo anyway?  Seems you pop the hood on any current GT350 'n ya get 95% of the picture.

Yes..in the photos I've found (posted in the Tamiya Mustang GT4 thread), it looks pretty much the same as a stock GT350 engine compartment...

[Tom Geiger]

1 hour ago, tim boyd said:

Also,  I do not consider the Revell S550 snap-toy to be a kit at all, which is why I have not commented negatively on it to date.  

TIM 

Tim, was that “toy” commissioned by Ford as an auto show giveaway? Or did Revell do it on their own?

[Plowboy]

I've always said I'll take a curbside kit with nice proportions and no engine over a full detail kit with wrecked proportions any day. Revell's LX is a perfect example. The engine didn't help the body at all.

The engine in the MPC Mustang doesn't make up for chrome headlights and molded in taillights. It just doesn't. But, everyone has their own preferences and are entitled to them. 

[Luc Janssens]

58 minutes ago, RickyD said:

Whenever I hear someone puling about the lack of an engine in a model car kit, the first place my mind inevitably goes is "Wow, not once in my life have I ever heard an armor or aircraft modeler complain about one of their kits not having an engine. Never. Not one time." And we all know what a demanding bunch military builders are. Yes, some armor and aircraft kits do have engines, but it's not like there's some unwritten law that they have to have engines to be considered worthy of builders' time and attention.

Reason No. 9,534 why society at large tends to view military modelers as serious miniaturists and historical recreationosts and car modelers as arrested adolescents playing with toy cars.

Yes, but It's also a smaller scale, and if you do want one, the aftermarket is huge!

I'm pretty sure, the aftermarket will come to the rescue for those of us who want an engine, look what unfolded after the Hasegawa BMW  2002Tii came to market...

[RickyD]

46 minutes ago, Plowboy said:

I've always said I'll take a curbside kit with nice proportions and no engine over a full detail kit with wrecked proportions any day. Revell's LX is a perfect example. The engine didn't help the body at all.

Absolutely, which is why I'll take Revell's '57 Chevy SnapTite kit over any other Bel Air hardtop kit that has ever been produced in 1/24-25 scale. It's my observation that the odds of a kit having a correctly proportioned body increase when the body is essentially all the manufacturer has to worry about. Or, at least that seems to be the case where Revell is concerned.

[tim boyd]

2 hours ago, Tom Geiger said:

Tim, was that “toy” commissioned by Ford as an auto show giveaway? Or did Revell do it on their own?

Tom. I don't know, this happened after I retired at Ford.  I've heard that there was cooperation between the two companies, but to what extent other than that the toy was ready at the global Mustang launch events, I do not know.    TIM 

[tim boyd]

17 hours ago, Chuck Kourouklis said:

 

I'm not interested in changing anyone's views either, but I do have a thought experiment to throw out there: I submit that there is no argument anyone can pose for the OBJECTIVE necessity of a full kit engine that doesn't make poseable steering and opening doors even MORE important to a complete car model. 

Would I have SO much preferred the full Voodoo treatment from Tamiya? A thousand times, yes!

Will I call the kit incomplete without it?

A thousand times a thousand times, NO.

Chuck, thanks for taking the time to present your point of view, always eloquently too, I might add.

As for the thought experiment....I'm not asking for a working engine,,,,just a representation of the engine itself.  The commensurate omission in your example would be the complete elimination steering components and the elimination of the door itself.   I'm not asking those to be working, either, just be there.  Otherwise....oh-oh...it's an incomplete kit (smile). 

(For those of you who don't know this, Chuck and I have (I hope) good-naturedly spared back and forth on this topic ever since he picked a curbside Chevy Astro kit as kit of the year back over several other really good kits, yes with engines.  This was back in the 1990's when he was doing his terrific kit of the year article series for the late great Car MOdeler magazine. ) 

And come on, now, Chuck, you as the owner of a V8 S197 Mustang know the importance of the engine in the overall appeal of that car....which is one of the reasons this topic remains so near and dear to me.  

Anyway, thanks again for the response....TIM  

[tim boyd]

5 hours ago, stitchdup said:

so ford dont let tamiya see or measure the engine in their racecar (obviously they dont want other teams to see whats been done for competition reasons) and somehow its tamiya to blame? makes perfect sense to me that engines in a current race car have secrets they dont want everyone to see

I doubt that is the case but does anybody have any definitive proof of this?   TB  

[tim boyd]

11 hours ago, niteowl7710 said:

No this whole argument comes up with Tim only when it involves Tamiya and a Ford product.  You see a DECADE ago Tamiya made the grave error of producing the Aston Martin DBS with only a partial engine insert.  Mr. Boyd Is personally connected to the engine that powers the DBS from his time at Ford.  So every...single...time Tamiya dares release a Ford product that doesn't have a full detail engine inside of it, we get this beating of a dead horse that's been going on so long now that there's no molecule of the horse left, nor even a stained spot on the ground.  Just Tim slapping the dirt with his "bad Tamiya" stick. 

I have to say Tim I respect your opinion to have an opinion, and lord knows nobody will (or should) change it.  BUT at the same time, I'd have a lot more respect for your position if you carried this torch for EVERY model kit produced, not just one company and one product line.  I fail to remember a single muttered comment about the lack of engine in the AMG GT3, TS-050, or either of the Mazda MX-5 kits, or either 370Z, or the new Supra, or Toyoda AA, or the partial lousy inserts in the Toyota 86/Subaru BRZ, or ANY kit from ANY other manufacturer when it comes down to it..  We get it, we understand it, we comprehend it.  But at the same time when you lambast kits that people enjoy - regardless of your subjective opinion of their degree of completeness or disqualification from yearly awards presentations - you come across as talking down to everyone else here.  Because somehow your personal opinion is seemingly more important and/or relevant than that of any of the thousands of modelers who've purchased this kit in the past two weeks.

OK James, i guess I need to respond to you as well.  Apparently I have done a less than stellar job of explaining my position on this so I will try once more.  

1) I get in that in today's world the majority of newly tooled kits will omit the engine.  I don't personally like this, but as a business person I understand the logic and the need to balance product development costs and product complexity with what the market will accept in terms of pricing.    

2) However, as someone who worked in the auto industry for 35 years, I can state with certainty that there are certain automotive products wherein the engine comprises a huge portion of the commercial appeal of the product, and generates much of the enthusiasm around the vehicle.  And with those specific automotive topics, a scale representation of the engine becomes a much higher priority in kit design and business case development.  Some of these are Ferraris, Lambos, Corvettes, and yes, Aston Martins and 5.0L Mustangs.  The new Supra?  Not so much, in that (as we all know) it does not use a bespoke Toyota engine.  Kinda hard to fault any model company for omitting that one.  And yes, much as I don't like it personally, I agree that the other kits you cite (MX-5, Toyoda AA et al) are probably good examples of point #1.  So no, I did not criticize those.   As for the AMG GT3, I didn't buy that kit but had I, I should have voiced the same concern.  And I should have spoken up when I bought the Aoshima Aventador LP700-4 with the understanding it had a complete engine, only to open the box and find something far less than that. 

3) Most people in the hobby today seem to believe Tamiya is the world's best kitmaker (overall), and certainly from a business point of view they seem to be the most consistently successful in that criteria as well.   Along with that comes higher expectations.  Sadly, based on what I see at this point, I don't think we will be seeing newly tooled kits of new automotive introductions from any of the traditionally "domestic" kitmakers any time soon, other than one possible exception involving a future product topic that I do not have a sense of just how seriously is actually being considered.  If we are going to get new kits of new cars and trucks, they are probably going to have to come from overseas kitmakers, and for the reasons cited at the beginning of this point #3, Tamiya is the most likely candidate to develop those kits. 

Now, the point I am trying to make is that if one of those kits is of an automotive topic where the engine represents a large degree of the appeal (such as the Corvette C8), then in my strongly held view the kit must then include a full representation of the engine, not a partial engine or no engine, and not a body that omits an opening hood.  And since it appears to me that Tamiya would be the most logical candidate to product such a kit, I just want to do my own little part to express my hope that they will deliver such a kit.  I only represent one vote in this matter, others may agree or disagree.  But I will continue to express my views on the subject, as do others whether they agree with me or not.   

As some of you reading this thread have commented, when the kit is of a race car instead of a production car, it is more generally accepted by some that the kit will omit a full detail engine (though that seems a bit perverse to me).  In the case of the GT4, because there is no full detail kit of a production S550 Mustang, the Tamiya race car is the closest thing we will ever have to a production S550 kit (sadly) and that is again why personally I am so highly disappointed with the way the kit was produced.  If they follow with a full detail kit (as I have heard from some vague rumors), then I will be just as happy then as I am not happy now, and presuming it is done to the standards of the rest of the content of their kits, I will be happy to publicly acknowledge and praise them for their decision.   

James, I know I will have not changed your perspective.  Nor do I willingly attempt to talk down to anyone, as we are all equals in this hobby and on this Forum.  I do not agree with some of your comments above, but I do not intend to knowingly disrespect your views on this, as indicated by the time I have taken to draft this response.  I do wish you would afford me the same consideration, which seems to me to me a bit missing in the first paragraph of your response above.     

Best Regards....TIM  

      

 

[tim boyd]

6 hours ago, Chuck Kourouklis said:

Maybe.  And for the record, I don't think the promo S550 kits have gotten off scott-free here.  When I see

"If there were other S550 generation Mustang full detail kits on the market, this would really not be an issue,"

it's all too easy to read that as,

"After six years of balls dropped by a lousy 'Build 'n Play' for the most deserving Mustang since the original, it is MILES beyond frustrating to see a manufacturer like Tamiya come soooooooo close to giving us an engine only to miss it by THAT MUCH."

Not to put words in anybody's mouth, but though the commentary isn't explicit, I think it's there pretty loud between the lines. 

Then again, that's probably just me. ?

 

Chuck....that's not far off how I see this....thanks for putting it in your own words that are perhaps a little more clear than mine were....TIM 

[tim boyd]

Guys...I've taken up way too much of your time, and space on this thread, regarding this topic. 

As I said before, I don't expect to change your views on this topic, nor will mine be changed.  I just hope we can respect each other's thoughts on this.  Thanks for taking the time to express yours.  

I'm going to sign off on this one now; feel free to continue to respond as you see fit.  Over and out....TIM  

Edited May 23, 2020 by tim boyd

[Chuck Kourouklis]

On 5/22/2020 at 4:47 PM, tim boyd said:

Chuck, thanks for taking the time to present your point of view, always eloquently too, I might add.

As for the thought experiment....I'm not asking for a working engine,,,,just a representation of the engine itself.  The commensurate omission in your example would be the complete elimination steering components and the elimination of the door itself.   I'm not asking those to be working, either, just be there.  Otherwise....oh-oh...it's an incomplete kit (smile). 

(For those of you who don't know this, Chuck and I have (I hope) good-naturedly spared back and forth on this topic ever since he picked a curbside Chevy Astro kit as kit of the year back over several other really good kits, yes with engines.  This was back in the 1990's when he was doing his terrific kit of the year article series for the late great Car MOdeler magazine. ) 

And come on, now, Chuck, you as the owner of a V8 S197 Mustang know the importance of the engine in the overall appeal of that car....which is one of the reasons this topic remains so near and dear to me.  

Anyway, thanks again for the response....TIM  

A pleasure as always, Tim! I've enjoyed this exchange too, and especially your indulgence as we get down into the weeds.  Actually think it would be fun to anthologize, though I don't know if it's worth the effort for just two readers.  ?

If I may sort the record a little, it wasn't Fujimi's Astro to take that ranking - 2002, I think? and I'm pretty sure it had migrated to Scale Auto by then - but Tamiya's Mitsubishi Evo VII:

And it was actually that comparison more than any other to force me to reckon with this whole issue.  Those rankings were necessarily subjective, just one dude's experiences and opinions after all; but I tried to impose as many objective criteria as possible and assign them scores.  And sometimes the numbers would take those rankings in directions I didn't anticipate.

Can't say I was surprised by the Tamiya Evo, though.  Scale Auto had completed build pics of most of the other kits that year, but they wanted me to finish this one properly, and it took about half the time I thought it would.  To claim it flew together doesn't quite cover it; it was as if the thing actually cheered you on from one step to the next.

And so here was a kit with a parts count in the 130s, lavishing significantly more detail and engineering cleverness on its suspension and roll-caged interior than Revell did on the '68 Firebird's engine or any other part of that kit.  The Firebird had about 120 parts total and around 90 in whichever version you finished, and while it wasn't exactly difficult to build, it had some temperament here and there where Tamiya's had nothing of the kind in 50% more parts.

So I'm supposed to rank the Firebird over the Evo simply because the former had an engine and the latter didn't?  The notion was flat RIDICULOUS in this example, and it demonstrated in no uncertain terms just how arbitrary and unmoored from ANY sort of fairness such a criterion would have been.

What may stick in your mind about the Astro is that it also beat the Firebird, even with the consideration given Revell in its design score for offering two versions.  It was also a trouble-free build with a lot of intricacy packed into its interior and undercarriage, no temperament at all in a parts count 30% greater. The Firebird actually did well to land in 3rd place that year.  It wasn't quite the precipitous nose dive in quality embodied by AMT's '58 Plymouth and Ala-Kart, but it was a bit of a backslide, especially as compared to two short years previously.

Now as for an engine being the main appeal of a car, recall that the thought experiment mandated objective arguments.  Sure, there can be consensus on certain subjects (if there's a curbside plastic kit of a Shelby Cobra anywhere, I sure have yet to see it), but what's a Countach defined by, its V12 or its outrageous shape?  What defines a C8 Corvette, the engine or exactly where in the car you see the top of it?  It's certainly a line of reasoning to demonstrate why more modelers might want to see the 389 in that Tempest, or that Coyote V8 in what might otherwise be a V6 rental car, and it's a strong, visceral emotional appeal; but as a hard, objective condition for a complete model, it doesn't quite deliver.

And as for the representation of an engine versus an operating one, I'm afraid it's not quite as simple as all that... *ducking*

I'm glad we're in agreement that an engine bay isn't complete without a steering column and box!  But if we take your line of reasoning on commensurate omissions and prosecute it completely, its complexion changes drastically for this reason:  the omission of a door is immediately visible. With the exception of hot rods and some exotics pimping their mills under glass, the omission of an engine (and steering components) is not. 

Let's say you didn't mean an actual missing door, but the engraved panel lines defining it, and that those panel lines would be plenty sufficient for a complete model. By the most commensurate measure, some good 3-D molding of the powertrain lowers on a chassis plate would be EXACTLY as "complete".  

As for positional steering, here's the most 1:1-looking shot I took of Pocher's Aventador:

Now that's a car defined in great measure by its manic V12.  But there's a car model feature that might help sell this pic as 1:1 to the less initiated - and it ain't the engine.

And this is where it becomes apparent that you and I might not be starting from the exact same premise.  A modeling pal came up with what I hold to be the most beautifully quintessential expression of a scale model's purpose, something I've taken to calling the Taylor Maxim: a scale model's primary job is to sit there and look like its 1:1 subject.

Accuracy and precision, exact proportions and every immediately visible feature possible in scale are essential to achieve this purpose.  An engine. just. isn't.  It can be a dazzling addition, but a scale model can be entirely complete by this definition without one.

But that's mainly for those who subscribe to the Taylor Maxim, and you might not...

Well. There are those who would seize on the first flimsy excuse for some pious declaration on how we've gotten off topic, and here I am venturing dangerously close to actually justifying such a thing. ?

Edited May 24, 2020 by Chuck Kourouklis
diction, typo

[Luc Janssens]

About the lack of engine in the most recent Tamiya Mustang GT4 kit...

 

Dear Mr. Janssens,

Thank you for contacting us, and for your question regarding the engine in our 1/24 Ford Mustang GT4 model.

When it comes to developing a kit, while our designers certainly do their best to keep everyone happy with the quality of our models, we have to be in tune with what the market wants, and this means that sometimes we are not able to put in all the detail that some modelers would like, for pricing or other reasons (ease of assembly, accessibility). At any rate, it is our sincere hope that the Mustang GT4 kit provides great enjoyment for modelers of all levels.

I'm really appreciate that you picked up TAMIYA products for enjoying.

Thank you again,

******************************************
A.AOKI
TAMIYA inc. Customer service div.
 

[randyc]

So... what kind of motor oil is best???  LOL.   Interesting discourse from a couple of well-known members of the hobby.   Thanks guys for the mostly enjoyable debate.   I finished my Porsche Rally Fujim EM kit yesterday.   It has a beautiful engine.   My skills were not up to it when I started the kit a gazillion years ago.  But it's still a nice piece.   And covered up.   It could have no engine and no one would know the difference at this point.  It will go in a case and never be opened up again most likely.  I should have built it and displayed it on the stand, but that just wouldn't be right to build a model without the enging in place.  If it has one.    I used to think a proper model had an engine.   Not so much anymore.  

But the headlights are always an issue when they are chrome.   Some can be made to look reasonable if ya really gotta have a kit.   Last kit I did with the chrome headlights was the 59 Imperial.  I think I have a few coming up though.  

 

[keyser]

Great  discussion here. Like threads should be. We meandered from chrome headlights to engine ?? (which I have agreement variously, depending on fidelity).

Upside Randy, if the 911 is older, you won't need a scale drip pan under it. New 911's you pop the hood and are looking at 2 fans and a plastic shroud, so that's an issue. And the "carbon" under the hood of an Huracan looks like the cheap black and green swirled plastic pots you get from Home Depot in their planter flowers. That you pay extra for. ?